Chieh Cheng wrote:
>
> Since you brought up several pro/con points. I like to
> comment on some of them.
>
> > Pro:
> > -You can use the camera you are already familiar with.
> > -You can use your existing lenses.
>
> Agreed.
Not really. While you obviously can "use" your lenses, I'm
not ready to invest in a 14/2.8 L to get a normal lens for
this digital gadget. Forget about doing any wide angle
photography. Therefor, you can sure count me out when it
comes to buying this thingy.
>
> > Cons:
> > -You can get a COMPLETE digital camera for less money
> > and with higher resolution.
>
> True . . . but unfortunately not quite valid, because
> comparison should only be made between Silicon Film
> vs. Canon EOS or Silicon Film vs. Nikon SLR. If you
> consider EOS or Nikon SLR digital cameras, they are all
> far more costly than the Silicon Film EFS-1 unit.
>
> Getting a complete digital camera for less money and
> higher resolution is possible but it's not a EOS or a
> Nikon SLR.
>
You can't compare a EOS 1N + EFS-1 with an SLR, not even
with a Rebel. IMHO, analog SLRS have advantages over
digital viewfinder cameras and vice versa. An SLR + EFS-1
is the combination of both, having most of the disadvantages
and very few of the advantages.
> The basis of my point is from having a Olympus
> C-2500L digital camera with through-the-lens
> view-finder. Althought it can capture many shots my
> EOS camera can, it is still far more limited. With the
> wide array of lens I have for the EOS, I can do far more.
>
You don't have a wide array of lenses to use with the EFS-1.
You don't have a wide angle, don't have a normal lens. What
you have is a collection of superteles, suitable to take a
snap of the guys on board of the ISS when they look out of the
window, but not for most normal shooting situations.
> Therefore, I feel one can not compare the EFS-1 to
> just any digital camera unles one does not need a EOS
> or a Nikon SLR in the first place. It really should be
> compared to the Canon EOS D30 or the Nikon D1 or
> any of the other profession Canon/Nikon digital SLR
> series.
>
Better don't compare it to those cameras. The result would
be not very favorable for the EFS-1. The EFS-1 really misses
most of the advantages of digital. The only use I could see
for it would be a sports press photographer who needs long
teles anyway and needs digital to be able to deliver the
results immediately. Then again, those guys usually either
have a much better digital SLR anyway or their paper will
provide them with one. I can't imagine one of those guys using
an EFS-1.
> > -The number of shots for a battery charge is probably
> > very low. That is especially bad if the battery is
> > build in. Even if not the kind of batteries used are
> > probably not rechargable and cost quite a lot of
> > money.
>
> Cannot comment on this. It is just speculation right now.
> Unless you know the exact power source EFS-1 is or
> will be using.
Well, it doesn't need to have much charge. Afer a very limited
number of exposures the EFS-1 is full anyway. Unless you also
carry a laptop to download the images you have to either stop
shooting or to insert the next unit, which has its own fresh
power source then. You can't even edit your images and delete
the bad ones to save some space, because you can't view your
images!
>
> > -'magnification' factor of your lens is big. Forget
> > wide-angle shots. Also you still will see the same
> > viewfinder and have to judge yourself what will be in
> > the picture and what not.
>
> Once again, not quite valid, because any of the
> Canon/Nikon professional digital SLR also have a
> 'magnification' factor.
Yes, but a much smaller one. Still, this is enough of a nuisance
for me to stay clear of them.
> In fact, all digital cameras today do not have full-size 35mm
> image sensor. Therefore, all digital cameras have a 'magnification'
> factor. It is just that their lens are built with the correct
> magnification.
Yes, and that makes all the difference. Unless you need very shallow
DOF, the magnification factor is irrelevant if you have lenses with
accordingly smaller focal lengths.
> There can be advantages here. If you use a grided
> focus screen, you can figure out the exact crop. And
> with the extra space in the view finder, you can see
> the action around the final picture without moving
> your eye away from the view-finder. Sound like a
> wonderful use for action and sport photography.
>
As I said before, this may be a (limited) use for the EFS-1.
But with 11% of the area of your viewfinder, judging the image
in the viewfinder is almost guesswork. You can't see the small
details, like closed eyes and the like.
> > -The number of shots is probably very limited. So you
> > have to backup the pictures to the optional storage
> > media (costs money again) quite often.
>
> This applies to any digital camera. I have a bunch of
> media cards for my digital camera, which did not come
> with the original camera.
>
With the EFS-1, you have to buy several complete units, quite
costly ...
Over all, if you really think about it, the EFS-1 isn't very
useful for most photographers. It may be useful for sports,
but only for press photographers. It's resolution isn't enough
for other applicatons, even a 4x6 inch print will be marginal.
Thomas Bantel
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
